We might laud those singers' artistic abilities, but those performance abilities do not establish them as authorities on tuning, its history, the tuning of other instruments in the orchestra, the argued physics some bring into the extended discussion or, really, necessarily anything outside their own experience and practice unless they have some special training or education in one or more of those fields.

Now, if a specific alternative tuning standard offered all the advantages claimed by some, one would think such alternatives would have made far greater inroads, particularly in contexts where tuning is a relatively trivial exercise (as opposed, for instance, to the piano -- but if a pianist is committed, there's no reason he can't begin tuning his instrument to 432, people certainly have).

No. You don't get off that easy. You said this: Where do I make 'a universal claim about 432'?

You didn't. I already said "my bad."

It was implied though, whether you meant the implication or not. If you didn't mean that implication, and weren't saying all this as evidence for 432 claims, then once again, fine, my bad for putting that on you.

In the context of proving 432 claims, populum and authority claims are meaningless. That's my point. But seems you agree so we're all good

OK so you're saying I didn't say what you said I did; but that's what you think I might of implied...so that's OK is it? 'Your bad' is it?
Please stop making things up.

I've made nothing up. There was a clear implication there, that you apparently did not mean, and I'm saying I accept that this isn't what you meant, to the point of apologizing for misreading you. Let it go man, I'm being cool, don't dig in further. Sheesh.

I've made nothing up. There was a clear implication there, that you apparently did not mean, and I'm saying I accept that this isn't what you meant, to the point of apologizing for misreading you. Let it go man, I'm being cool, don't dig in further. Sheesh.

You did make something up: you said I made 'a universal claim about 432.'

Yeah. No kidding. Been saying it all along. I fully, absolutely do not care what tuning standard others use.

My only dog in this fight (if one can pardon the brutal metaphor) is abhorrence of pseudoscience and nonsensical rationalization in support of personal preference.

Well, yeah, I know what you mean there:

This thing bordering on religious fervor about this seems to be a rather new development.

Back in the day, I recorded many a project without so much as a pitch pipe or tuning fork (let alone an electronic tuner) anywhere in sight.

Often, the only time anybody thought much about this stuff was when using a piano/organ/etc. ...And if such an instrument was overdubbed, we'd just grab the vari-speed knob and tune the tape to the instrument (assuming the instrument was in tune with itself).

I DO remember some of the "classical" crowd getting all apoplectic about playing certain older pieces on vintage instruments in "vintage tunings", but...

Its kinda like there are now two competing factions of "pitch-natzis" out there: Those who seem to have autotune as a religion, and those who worship the number 432.